@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Interestingly, Haramein has provided more math when it comes to understanding the black hole universe than these theorists have provided about black holes and event horizons...but I digress... Assuming you're correct. Is it really more interesting that Haramein's postulated formula is more complex? I'd say not. It's more interesting which more accurately represents reality. Harmein is the one that claims blackholes to be at the center of the sun, the earth, and every atom. Noteably the immediately available evidence we have is counter to Haramein's claim. Quote: These theorists use the terminology of 'THE event horizon' or 'a black hole's event horizon'. If they mean the point at which light can't escape then it should be clearer. The theorists are very clear here. Your problem appears to be the article didn't take the time to better explain what the established definition for 'The Event Horizon'. Again in physics this means the area around the singularity where nothing, not even light, can escape. Quote: however for more massive objects, that point still remains farther out No it doesn't. The Event Horizon is where nothing can escape. If something is escaping then that region of space is not part of the Black Hole's Event Horizon. What you're describing is being captured by a black hole, which (especially on massive and slow objects) will happen well in advance of those objects entering the Event Horizon. Quote: For instance Alice and Bob have a different event horizon than light...and that's my point.The article treats Alice, Bob and light as having the same event horizon Your definitional use is incorrect. Alice and Bob have different points of capture than light or than a planet. They do in fact have the exact same Event Horizon. The Event Horizon is defined as the region of spacetime where the escape velocity of all objects is greater than speed of light. So by definition if something is escaping at a velocity under c than that object is not in the Event Horizon. Quote: What I'm saying is that Alice would be able to see Bob fall in, where as the article says she couldn't. If she couldn't then Bob would have crossed light's event horizon, HOWEVER Alice would cross it soon enough herself. Basically, these theorists are stupid and use bad terminology and dig themselves into paradoxes. The problem here is in the analogy. Analogies are imperfect by nature. They're meant to help the reader grasp on how this works. To really understand it we'd have to throw up the formulas and 99% of the readers would be lost. Your problem here is you assigned the problem to science, when in fact it's a problem with the literary use of analogy.

I think it is you that fails to recognize what an event horizon is.
Actually, I don't think that at all, I know it.

For instance, if "light" grazed an event horizon at an angle perpendicular to the black hole, assuming the black hole never got bigger, that photon could orbit the black hole indefinitely at the event horizon never able to escape it.

The EH is not the surface of a black hole, just the point at which YOU can't escape it's 'gravity'. The article, like ALL of Relativity assumes too many things and takes certain things as constants, which are not.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Nassim Haramein is entirely self taught with no reference or credit given to outside sources. What this means in practice is that he taught himself everything that he knows, and since he started off knowing nothing, by the laws of circular logic he now knows precisely nothing, even though he claims to know everything. The problem with Haramein and others like himself is that they always ignore basic principles, especially the basic definitions. It is by ignoring the basic definition of the term "event horizon" that you seek to muddy the waters by claiming that a photon, Alice and Bob, and the planet Jupiter all have differing event horizons because they have differing capture characteristics based on their own mass. (Please note that the differing characteristics are based on mass not EM charge.)

But those capture characteristics are reality where as the mythical event horizon is just theory.

The fact remains that IF you define the EH as where all matter including LIGHT, then if Bob falls into that and Alice is very close to Bob, Alice is on her way also into it since she is also captured. As I mentioned to BrianK about light hitting its EH at a perpendicular angle, a photon could orbit it indefinitely. Perhaps the buildup of these photons circling a black hole is a 'firewall'. Still sounds like a star to me.

from Event Horizon wiki:
"In general relativity, an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer. In layman's terms it is defined as "the point of no return" i.e. the point at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible."

As for your bolding of 'mass', photons don't have charge. However they have mass by definition.

Quote:

This lack of understanding of basic definitions is responsible for Harameins "Schwarzchild proton" fantasy. The Scwarzchild radius is the distance from the center of an object such that, if all the mass of the object were compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface would equal the speed of light. I have taken the liberty of bolding the word that both Haramein and yourself seem incapable of seeing or understanding. For example the fact that the Earth has a Schwarzchild radius of 8.9mm means that if the Earth were compressed into a sphere 8.9mm radius it would become a black hole as opposed to the Haramein statement that it has an 8.9mm radius black hole at its centre. In my youth I had a stable body mass of 67kG which means that I had a Schwarzchild radius that I could calculate using the formula already mentioned. I won't bother doing the calculation since the answer would be considerably less than the Planck length as a ratio, rather than in terms of "feet and inches". More recently this radius would have increased as my body mass increased to 100kG. Despite the fact that I have a varying Schwarzchild radius I know that my mass is not the result of a black hole at my core, if only for the reason that over the last few years I have reduced mass to 74kg without emitting any detectable Hawking radiation When Haramein delves into the subject of ancient history he not only fails to understand the basics, he can be seen to have deliberately misrepresented the facts in order to make his fantasies seem credible. He is not quite in the Von Daniken catgory of creating forged "evidence" yet , but give him more time and things may change.

So because someone is self-taught, their IQ is lower? Regardless of your OPINION, Haramein co-authored papers with another scientist...not to mention receiving accolades from many other scientists.

I guess all those "Teach Yourself _____ in 24 Hours" books are all bunk then...

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-sets-record-ion-thrusters-test-181923369.html

So much for ion thrusters not existing or being impractical as some people in this thread would have you believe...

@Lou

Quote:

I think it is you that fails to recognize what an event horizon is. Actually, I don't think that at all, I know it.

In this post You contended more than 1 Event Horizon That is incorrect. A Black Hole has 1 Event Horizon. Science defines the Event Horizon to be that area of spacetime which all objects, including light, must travel greater than the speed of light to escape. Your usage is incorrect.

Quote:

For instance, if "light" grazed an event horizon at an angle perpendicular to the black hole, assuming the black hole never got bigger, that photon could orbit the black hole indefinitely at the event horizon never able to escape it

Not sure what point you're trying to bring here?

Quote:

The EH is not the surface of a black hole, just the point at which YOU can't escape it's 'gravity'

You have a couple of things going on here. Quote:

EH is not the surface of a black hole

Black Holes don't have a true surface, like for example your dresser. The scientifically used phrase 'surface of Black Hole' means the same thing as Event Horizon and are interchangeable. Quote:

just the point at which YOU can't escape it's 'gravity'

This is true if by what you mean by 'YOU' is really 'EVERYTHING, INCLUDING LIGHT ITSELF'.

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-sets-record-ion-thrusters-test-181923369.html So much for ion thrusters not existing or being impractical as some people in this thread would have you believe...

Practically depends upon application. In this particular case this ion thruster has the force of ~.5 Newtons. That's roughly about the force of four quarters in the palm of your hand. Clearly, this ion thruster is not sufficent to generate the thousand(s) of Newtons necessary to launch satellites into near earth orbit. So yeah it's impractical in that sense.

Where this device would be praticle is to 'launch' a satellite from space to another region of space. Assuming this ship is maintained in the near frictionless environment of space it would eventually travel fast. It'd take about a year to build up the speed for space journey. Practical for carrying unmanned missions.

And Congrats to NASA for building a more efficent version of 50 year old technology!

@Lou

Quote:

The EH is not the surface of a black hole, just the point at which YOU can't escape it's 'gravity'.

It is not the point at which BrianK can, or cannot escape, it is the point at which the escape velocity exceeds that of light.

Quote:

So because someone is self-taught, their IQ is lower?

Of course not, but they invariably ignore the need to start with the basics. Any structure that lacks sound foundations will invariably collapse.

Quote:

Haramein co-authored papers with another scientist...not to mention receiving accolades from many other scientists.

The only accolade that Haramein has recieved is the award for the best physics speech at a computer programming conference. As for Elizabeth Rauscher, all I can see is that her fascination for remote viewing, precognition, psychokinesis, remote healing, ghosts, and all sorts of other new age beliefs has allowed the snake oil salesman and self publicist Haramein to sell her a bill of goods.

Quote:

I guess all those "Teach Yourself _____ in 24 Hours" books are all bunk then...

Good guess. Youb cannot learn to play the guitar like Eric Clapton in just six easy lessons. You also need to take the five years of hard lessons, plus twenty years experience and practice.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

The EH is not the surface of a black hole

Well, actually it is. For all intents and purposes. You can't see beyond the event horizon, hence it looks exactly like a surface. Besides, you're forgetting the mathematical definition of surface (it doesn't quite agree with the layman definition)

And the point of 's/YOU/ANYTHING/' in the rest of your sentence really can't be made too many times, so here goes: I think you mean "just the point where ANYTHING can't escape it's (sic) 'gravity'"

And as for your photon orbiting at the event horizon, that's sadly not the way it works. The orbit would have to be higher to orbit at light speed. This radius is called "the photon sphere". Escape velocity is not the same as orbit velocity.

So I honestly think it is you who fail.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

The event horizon is gravity's way of telling space time, and everything in it, that it just got owned.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou Quote: The EH is not the surface of a black hole Well, actually it is. For all intents and purposes. You can't see beyond the event horizon, hence it looks exactly like a surface. Besides, you're forgetting the mathematical definition of surface (it doesn't quite agree with the layman definition) And the point of 's/YOU/ANYTHING/' in the rest of your sentence really can't be made too many times, so here goes: I think you mean "just the point where ANYTHING can't escape it's (sic) 'gravity'" And as for your photon orbiting at the event horizon, that's sadly not the way it works. The orbit would have to be higher to orbit at light speed. This radius is called "the photon sphere". Escape velocity is not the same as orbit velocity. So I honestly think it is you who fail.

You are wrong, but its not worth arguing with people who don't understand the basics.

@Karlos

Quote:

Karlos wrote: The event horizon is gravity's way of telling space time, and everything in it, that it just got owned.

Theorists paint the event horizon as a black and white point in space where once you cross it, in the blink of an eye you are stretched and smashed into oblivion. Reality is far different.

If you were at the center of the universe and as many believe, we are a black hole universe, you could shoot a light beam to the outer edge and what would happen is over time that light beam would continue to be bent and by the time it reaches "light's" event horizon, it would essentially be travelling perpendicular to and orbitting the center of the universe.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: The EH is not the surface of a black hole, just the point at which YOU can't escape it's 'gravity'. It is not the point at which BrianK can, or cannot escape, it is the point at which the escape velocity exceeds that of light. Quote: So because someone is self-taught, their IQ is lower? Of course not, but they invariably ignore the need to start with the basics. Any structure that lacks sound foundations will invariably collapse. Quote: Haramein co-authored papers with another scientist...not to mention receiving accolades from many other scientists. The only accolade that Haramein has recieved is the award for the best physics speech at a computer programming conference. As for Elizabeth Rauscher, all I can see is that her fascination for remote viewing, precognition, psychokinesis, remote healing, ghosts, and all sorts of other new age beliefs has allowed the snake oil salesman and self publicist Haramein to sell her a bill of goods. Quote: I guess all those "Teach Yourself _____ in 24 Hours" books are all bunk then... Good guess. Youb cannot learn to play the guitar like Eric Clapton in just six easy lessons. You also need to take the five years of hard lessons, plus twenty years experience and practice.

I quoted the definition of an event horizon. It does not mention light.
As for the rest, once again your opinion is worthless.

@Lou

edit: now I see, you quoted the same wikipedia article as I was using to counter your arguments. nice. did you read it at all?

The definition of an event horizon surely cannot be "the sphere around a singularity from within which BrianK cannot escape".

The definition follows directly from the name "event horizon": Beyond this you cannot observe any events. Light might not be mentioned here directly, but if you cannot observe then that would mean you can't SEE (hence photons cannot escape), wouldn't it?

If you are talking about the BrianK horizon, maybe you should WRITE THAT instead of the EVENT horizon.

The event horizon is NOT the sphere around the black holes which have orbital velovity == c, that's called the "photon sphere". The event horizon is the sphere around a (non-rotating) black hole which has ESCAPE velocity == c.

So it's not the place beyond which you are doomed, it's the place beyond which you seem to disappear to US, who are faithfully waving you goodbye on your brave journey.

Don't let the event horizon slam you on the way in.

Last edited by olegil on 02-Jan-2013 at 07:42 PM.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@Lou

Quote:

Theorists paint the event horizon as a black and white point in space where once you cross it, in the blink of an eye you are stretched and smashed into oblivion

No they don't. Spaghettification only occurs close to the singularity. For a supermassive black hole the calculated density of the volume within the event horizon could match that of ice, and you could pass to within the event horizon with no noticable effect. Of course you would continue to drift toward the singularity until you got close enough to enjoy the experience you describe.

Quote:

If you were at the center of the universe and as many believe, ...

Just a quick reminder that belief is irrelevant The words "I believe" are the opening of a creed, not a postulate, and certainly not a scientific theory, let alone a fact.

Quote:

I quoted the definition of an event horizon.

No you didn't, you quoted the opening lines of a wikipedia article about event horizons. Specifically you quoted a loose definition "in laymans terms"

Had you investigated further (read the next section) you would have found something similar to my preferred "quick&easy" definition of the boundary within which the escape velocity exceeds that of light. You would also have found the more commonly used definition "within this horizon, all lightlike paths (paths that light could take) and hence all paths in the forward light cones of particles within the horizon, are warped so as to fall farther into the hole."

Last edited by Nimrod on 02-Jan-2013 at 08:35 PM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@olegil

Quote:

The definition follows directly from the name "event horizon": Beyond this you cannot observe any events.

Exactly! The event horizon of a black hole marks the dark region in space where the escape velocity is higher than the speed of light, for all objects including light itself.

When Lou was talking about how an object can change it's mass or accelerate quicker and get away, by definition, cannot be within the Event Horizon. There is, of course, an area of space-time around a Black Hole where an object could be thought to be captured. But if that object is reduces mass, increases acceleration, or both and manages to escape it is in that region defined by the ERGOSPHERE.

Scientific definition of parts of the Black Hole

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Theorists paint the event horizon as a black and white point in space where once you cross it, in the blink of an eye you are stretched and smashed into oblivion No they don't. Spaghettification only occurs close to the singularity. For a supermassive black hole the calculated density of the volume within the event horizon could match that of ice, and you could pass to within the event horizon with no noticable effect. Of course you would continue to drift toward the singularity until you got close enough to enjoy the experience you describe. Quote: If you were at the center of the universe and as many believe, ... Just a quick reminder that belief is irrelevant The words "I believe" are the opening of a creed, not a postulate, and certainly not a scientific theory, let alone a fact. Quote: I quoted the definition of an event horizon. No you didn't, you quoted the opening lines of a wikipedia article about event horizons. Specifically you quoted a loose definition "in laymans terms" Had you investigated further (read the next section) you would have found something similar to my preferred "quick&easy" definition of the boundary within which the escape velocity exceeds that of light. You would also have found the more commonly used definition "within this horizon, all lightlike paths (paths that light could take) and hence all paths in the forward light cones of particles within the horizon, are warped so as to fall farther into the hole."

And if you read far enough down, you'd read "The description of event horizons given by general relativity is thought to be incomplete."

These "thought experiments" that you are defending are stupid and that's what you and the other physics noobs don't understand. These thought experiments of the ABSOLUTE event horizon ignore the fact that these observers are already falling into the black hole because they have already crossed their relative event horizons. So you can't just dangle yourself on one side of the absolute one and wonder what you'll see when you shove your buddy over it as it doesn't matter since you'll be right behind him whether you like it or not.

Keep practicing high school physics, I'm sure it will take you far.

@Lou

what the flying squirrel does it matter MATHEMATICALLY whether an outside observer of CURRENT events will be doomed at some point in the future? What if Bob has cancer when Alice falls beyond the event horizon? Or maybe he has a heart attack and dies?

Alice falls beyond the event horizon and WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HAPPENS TO HER AFTER THAT BECAUSE WE CANNOT (BY DEFINITION OF EVENT HORIZON) OBSERVE ANY EVENTS BEYOND THE EVENT HORIZON.

Besides, you said it yourself, Bob can theoretically shed mass and accelerate (he's outside the event horizon), whereas Alice is shit out of luck (she's inside it). First you said Alice wasn't doomed then suddenly Bob IS doomed even though he's further out than Alice. Does anything you ever claim actually piece together in any way or is it all just single statements without any context?

Last edited by olegil on 02-Jan-2013 at 09:28 PM.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@Lou

Quote:

And if you read far enough down, you'd read "The description of event horizons given by general relativity is thought to be incomplete."

There is a very simple reason for this statement. It is because scientists are always willing to accept that there is more to learn, and that there are new facts to find. One way to tease out these new facts is to carry out thought experiments. You keep asking "What if?" and then testing your theoretical construct to destruction. Most of these "What ifs" fail under testing, but occasionally one survives all theoretical tests and then practical tests are developed to compare the predictions of the thought experiment with measured results of the practical tests. This is how the idea of the Higgs boson was formulated, tested and has now been demonstrated to high levels of confidence.

The fact that a description may or may not be incomplete does not automatically mean that the answer absolutely has to be Nibiru, or Zetans.

Quote:

These thought experiments of the ABSOLUTE event horizon ignore the fact that these observers are already falling into the black hole because they have already crossed their relative event horizons

None of the scientific definitions of the term "event horizon" include scope for a personal event horizon. The theoretical observer "Bob" can at any time before crossing the event horizon, turn away from it and put a match to his farts, losing mass and generating thrust. Since "Bob" is a theoretical observer, he can theoretically continue to lose theoretical mass, and produce theoretical thrust until he has exceeded the escape velocity.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou what the flying squirrel does it matter MATHEMATICALLY whether an outside observer of CURRENT events will be doomed at some point in the future? What if Bob has cancer when Alice falls beyond the event horizon? Or maybe he has a heart attack and dies? Alice falls beyond the event horizon and WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HAPPENS TO HER AFTER THAT BECAUSE WE CANNOT (BY DEFINITION OF EVENT HORIZON) OBSERVE ANY EVENTS BEYOND THE EVENT HORIZON. Besides, you said it yourself, Bob can theoretically shed mass and accelerate (he's outside the event horizon), whereas Alice is shit out of luck (she's inside it). First you said Alice wasn't doomed then suddenly Bob IS doomed even though he's further out than Alice. Does anything you ever claim actually piece together in any way or is it all just single statements without any context?

You still don't get it. The whole 'thought experiment' was stupid. For Bob and Alice to be that close to 'THE event horizon' they would have already been going so fast that one would meet the light emitted from the other because the other is now also crossing it. It's stupid to think about because nothing about it reflects reality. So you guys are here defending the ultimate unproven, unrealistic and more useless CRAP there is just to win on the internet on the definition of event horizon that is only THEORY.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: These thought experiments of the ABSOLUTE event horizon ignore the fact that these observers are already falling into the black hole because they have already crossed their relative event horizons None of the scientific definitions of the term "event horizon" include scope for a personal event horizon. The theoretical observer "Bob" can at any time before crossing the event horizon, turn away from it and put a match to his farts, losing mass and generating thrust. Since "Bob" is a theoretical observer, he can theoretically continue to lose theoretical mass, and produce theoretical thrust until he has exceeded the escape velocity.

Holy noob!

You do realize an event horizon is created by your definition of gravity correct?
You do realize that an ABSOLUTE event horizon is based on the *thing* with the smallest measurable mass in the universe(aka LIGHT) correct?
You do realize that 'gravitational attraction' is based on the mass of BOTH objects, correct?
You do realize that since Alica and Bob have a larger mass than light, that they would have crossed their personal event horizons prior to light, correct?
You do realize you are a physics noob, correct?

@Lou

Quote:

The whole 'thought experiment' was stupid. For Bob and Alice to be that close to 'THE event horizon'

Yes Lou it was 'stupid'. All analogies are imperfect by design. If you want to go in this direction even your construct is stupid. As Bob and Alice would more then likely be dead before entering the Event Horizon. What the analogy did illustrate well is the different theories at play and what each says happens at the Event Horizon is slightly different and incompatible with each other. This is a problem that science is accepting as a challenge.

Quote:

You do realize that an ABSOLUTE event horizon is based on the *thing* with the smallest measurable mass in the universe(aka LIGHT) correct?

An 'absolute' Event Horizon is your construct. Science defines the Event Horizon as the area at space-time where EVERYTHING including light is stuck.

Quote:

You do realize that 'gravitational attraction' is based on the mass of BOTH objects, correct?

Yes it is. And there may be objects stuck in the Ergosphere but not yet reached the point of the Event Horizon. Those objects stuck in the Ergosphere may be so because they either cannot shed their mass quickly enough or accelerate fast enough to get out.

Quote:

You do realize that since Alica and Bob have a larger mass than light, that they would have crossed their personal event horizons prior to light, correct?

A 'personal' Event Horizon is your construct. Science defines the Event Horizon to be the area of space-time where all objects, including light, is stuck. So if Alica and Bob are 'stuck', but light is not, they are not in the Event Horizon. They'd be in the Ergosphere.

Perhaps this helps you. Parts of a Black Hole The Ergosphere is an area around a Black Hole where objects can be captured. For discussion one could consider the Event Horizon to be a subset of the Ergosphere. As defined the Event Horizon is where all objects are stuck because all objects now have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. Because light known to be the lightest and fastest objects in the universe it's when it can't escape that defines the Event Horizon.

Quote:

You do realize you are a physics noob, correct?

You throwing out your guesses to replace definitional constructs is more noobish than what anyone else has said so far about Black Holes.

Last edited by BrianK on 03-Jan-2013 at 03:54 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: The whole 'thought experiment' was stupid. For Bob and Alice to be that close to 'THE event horizon' Yes Lou it was 'stupid'. All analogies are imperfect by design. If you want to go in this direction even your construct is stupid. As Bob and Alice would more then likely be dead before entering the Event Horizon. What the analogy did illustrate well is the different theories at play and what each says happens at the Event Horizon is slightly different and incompatible with each other. This is a problem that science is accepting as a challenge. Quote: You do realize that an ABSOLUTE event horizon is based on the *thing* with the smallest measurable mass in the universe(aka LIGHT) correct? An 'absolute' Event Horizon is your construct. Science defines the Event Horizon as the area at space-time where EVERYTHING including light is stuck. Quote: You do realize that 'gravitational attraction' is based on the mass of BOTH objects, correct? Yes it is. And there may be objects stuck in the Ergosphere but not yet reached the point of the Event Horizon. Those objects stuck in the Ergosphere may be so because they either cannot shed their mass quickly enough or accelerate fast enough to get out. Quote: You do realize that since Alica and Bob have a larger mass than light, that they would have crossed their personal event horizons prior to light, correct? A 'personal' Event Horizon is your construct. Science defines the Event Horizon to be the area of space-time where all objects, including light, is stuck. So if Alica and Bob are 'stuck', but light is not, they are not in the Event Horizon. They'd be in the Ergosphere. Perhaps this helps you. Parts of a Black Hole The Ergosphere is an area around a Black Hole where objects can be captured. For discussion one could consider the Event Horizon to be a subset of the Ergosphere. As defined the Event Horizon is where all objects are stuck because all objects now have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. Because light known to be the lightest and fastest objects in the universe it's when it can't escape that defines the Event Horizon. Quote: You do realize you are a physics noob, correct? You throwing out your guesses to replace definitional constructs is more noobish than what anyone else has said so far about Black Holes.

You're on crack, BrianK, you are responding to texts you weren't mentioned in...

FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_horizon